gyrofry posted:
u know who ELSE liked aristotle

thats right

Randites don't like Aristotle, they just have an imaginary friend that goes by that name. I'm pretty sure objectionists have never read Aristotle and Plato, and I've never found an essay where they actually cite primary sources to support their opinions on those great men. Their conception of Aristotle is unrecognisable to me.

Lykourgos posted:

gyrofry posted:
u know who ELSE liked aristotle

thats right

Randites don't like Aristotle, they just have an imaginary friend that goes by that name. I'm pretty sure objectionists have never read Aristotle and Plato, and I've never found an essay where they actually cite primary sources to support their opinions on those great men. Their conception of Aristotle is unrecognisable to me.

have you read alasdair macintyre's book

babyfinland posted:

Lykourgos posted:

gyrofry posted:
u know who ELSE liked aristotle

thats right

Randites don't like Aristotle, they just have an imaginary friend that goes by that name. I'm pretty sure objectionists have never read Aristotle and Plato, and I've never found an essay where they actually cite primary sources to support their opinions on those great men. Their conception of Aristotle is unrecognisable to me.

have you read alasdair macintyre's book

nope, does he shit on Randians?

Lykourgos posted:

babyfinland posted:

Lykourgos posted:

gyrofry posted:
u know who ELSE liked aristotle

thats right

Randites don't like Aristotle, they just have an imaginary friend that goes by that name. I'm pretty sure objectionists have never read Aristotle and Plato, and I've never found an essay where they actually cite primary sources to support their opinions on those great men. Their conception of Aristotle is unrecognisable to me.

have you read alasdair macintyre's book

nope, does he shit on Randians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue

The problem on which we should focus, both in science-that is, the problem of lack of understanding of what the cold fusion experiments signify, the crisis in science, the epistemological crisis in science prompted by the cold fusion experiments- results, and the witch-hunt itself-both go back to something which happened essentially during the 17th century in England and France. On the British side, the problem was the establishment of what became known as British empiricism by a group of Rosicrucian cultists associated with Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Elias Ashmole (the founder of British Freemasonry), John Locke and, of course, including Isaac Newton.

These people introduced an anti-Renaissance, what was considered at that period an anti-science, Aristotelian method, which was infused in a very peculiar with one element. This element was the introduction into science of what became known as empiricism, but was originally the central feature of the most notorious, sexually perverted religious cult in the history of medieval Europe - that is, the Cathar, Bogomil, or Bugger cult from the district of southern France associated with Albi and Toulouse.

The same thing happened in France itself. Buggery, in the form of the influence of this cult upon science, manifested itself in the work of Rene Descartes, particularly in Descartes's notion of deus ex machina. This established Cartesianism as a form of Buggery which has been traditional in French science and poisoning it or buggering it to the present day. This is quite literally the case: a Rosicrucian cult (which featured alchemy as one of its claims to fame), which was Aristotelian, cabbalistic, and Bugger (that is, it featured this split between spirit and flesh, as the new materialistic doctrine), which is characteristic of the Buggery cult of south France, of the Rhone district and Albi-Toulouse centuries earlier.

This cult merits a little bit of attention just so we know what we're talking about. Most people don't know this.

Before Christianity, there were established some very vicious cults in the area near Babylon: Oriental cults. These cults led to the various manifestations of a particular form of cult called Manicheanism. Now, one of these Manichean cults was situated in the eastern part of Turkey in the mountainous areas. For a while, this cult was used - it was a very vicious, bloody-handed cult - by the Caliphate against the Byzantine Empire. Later, according to Gibbon and others, a Byzantine Emperor called Constantine Copronymous took the cult, transplanted it or a good part of it from eastern Anatolia and stuck it in what was then Thrace, which is today modern Bulgaria. This cult was given the position of guarding the northern borders of the Byzantine Empire against these Slavs who were coming down into the area at the time.

As a result, as the cult became embedded there, sponsored by the Byzantine Empire, no less, the cult took a Slavic name, and became known as not only the Cathars, but also the Bogomils. The cult was spread by Venetian bankers working on behalf of the Byzantine Empire, into the south of France, where it was known variously thus, as the Bogomil cult, which is what the Bulgarian branch of the cult called itself, the Cathars, which all called themselves, that is, the Cathars, the "pure," or the purified, and it was also known in France as the Bulgarian cult. So we had the French les bougres, which was translated into English for the convenience of the English speaker, as "the Buggers."

Now, because of this cult's peculiar sexual perversion - that is, the belief that a man putting semen into a woman to impregnate her, was propagating the flesh, and that was evil - it resorted to various other kinds of sexual recreation and thus the name "Bugger" in English became associated with what it has become associated with in English to this day. So quite literally, Francis Bacon and his tribe buggered science and the result of this was empiricism. And a similar thing happened in France, in the form of the cult of Descartes, of Cartesianism.

This cult, this pseudo-alchemic cult called "Rosicrucian" during that period, and later called Freemasonic (based on the Freemasonic orders which were spun out of Rosicrucianism by people such as Elias Ashmole, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke and so forth), has been the dominant influence in what is called (or was called partly during the 17th century and more so during the 18th century), "the Enlightenment."

Over the past 25 years, we've seen that concretely: Twenty-five years ago, approximately from 1963 on, there was a mass recruitment in the United States to the rock-drug-sex counterculture. You can't separate them; they're all one package. A deliberate cult dogma, created by a Satanic cult - the Crowleyite cult in England - and put into the United -States as the rock-drug-sex counterculture, which is really a form of Satanic religion, which changed the values of our people. At the same time (approximately the same period), this was coupled with a neo-Malthusian cult. If you look at our policy today, you see that people today, in contrast to what they believed 30 years ago, believe today that a post-industrial society is good, that technology is bad, that man must adapt to the animals and to all kinds of strange species we never knew existed, and so forth, and so on. The nuclear family is considered bad, all kinds of things have happened. We no longer behave the way we did; we no longer have the values. We have been subjected to what is called a cultural paradigm shift. The axioms and postulates of our underlying assumptions of belief, have been dramatically altered by these means. Similarly, over the past 400 years, Western civilization has been in the process of being de-civilized, by the influence of a Buggery cult based on the intermeshed bleliefs of Aristotle or followers of Aristotle, of cabbalism, and of Buggery: the Cathar doctrine of the separation of matter from spirit, objective from subjective, and so forth and so on.

Therefore, we should see in this lesson, an identification of the problem which faces us: the Evil problem. It is not enough for us to respond to particular evils around us, to try to correct problems. That's not good enough. It won't work. If the majority of our population and our institutions are committed to policy assumptions, which policy assumptions ate causing these problems, you will not be able to succeed in getting through any remedy which contradicts those policy assumptions. In order to shape history, one must address directly the underlying policy assumptions, the cultural assumptions, which underlie the characteristic response of institutions and populations. That is what we have done, I believe, with more or less effectiveness, over the past couple of decades or so that this association has been in existence.

The reason I'm in prison, is because we're good at it, and because it works. We were not stuck into prison because we said things which displeased somebody. I was stuck into prison with others, and we were subjected to all kinds of evil harassment, terrible lies spread through nearly all of the press repeatedly over and over again - why?

Not because people didn't like what we said, but because we were effective with our methods.

What has the enemy said? The enemy has said we will cease to harass you, if you will give up your method, if you will stop doing that, if you will play ball on our terms, if you will make your criticisms or suggestions, within the confines of the kind of behavior which we consider acceptable. You want to say something in science? Say it in Baconian language; use the mathematics of Francis Bacon and Descartes's followers, and we'll listen to you. If you don't want to use that kind of argument, we won't listen to you. But if you use that kind of argument, and you succeed in influencing somebody, we're going to kill you. Because you're taking us back to Cusa, Leonardo, Kepler, and Leibniz, and so forth, and that we will not tolerate.

We attacked the underlying assumptions of the problems in Central and South America, and the result was Operation Juarez. We came within an ace of winning that battle in 1982; if we had won, the world would be vastly different than today, and all of Henry Kissinger's backers and George Bush's backers would be out of business. We were a threat. In the case of the SDI, which was a product of our influence upon the Reagan administration (a part of it), we changed the world somewhat, and had the proposal been in effect, why, then everything that Henry Kissinger's backers and those of Bush represented today, could not have been possible. In these cases, as in Operation Juarez, and our conception of the war on drugs back in 1978-79, where we invented the war on drugs; in each of these cases, we succeeded because we went back into history, went into the fundamentals of science and other things, to search out the underlying assumptions which determined the theorems, so to speak, upon which people were acting. And because we selected our action to attack and to change those flawed, underlying assumptions which were the causes of the problem, rather than to try to patch up the problem after the fact.

That is our contribution so far to history. That is a contribution which today, obviously, is much more needed, or much more urgently needed, than at any time during the past 20 years.

Lessons posted:

babyfinland posted:
lol i just imagiend getfiscal blasting slavoj zizek in the head while he (zizek) begged for mercy

Please, don't do it, is this not ideology at it's purest, *tugs at t shirt*, I am not some kind of dogmatic Stalini--*blam*

that's not why zizek deserves to die though

its the rape jokes isnt it

Lykourgos posted:
A friend of a relative of mine took me to a larouche meeting years ago and it was hilarious. They did a live performance of Book 1 of Plato's Republic, then they gave a speech about how the Queen is a monster who is trying to conquer the world and destroy freedom, then I left and never returned.

they say the queen is the head of a massive global drug trafficking ring

tpaine posted:

Lessons posted:

t-paine has my dad's musical tastes to a tee

your dad likes susumu

some dude namedropped this bro in my modern criticism class today lmao

getfiscal posted:
there is a lot of money flowing around in the US from foundations and shit because rich liberals give to things that are "socially innovative" and contribute to ecological sustainability or whatever. the whole thing is a huge industry though so it has evolved its own sort of logic. like you need evidence of "adding value" and "measurable objectives" and ongoing performance review and so on. it's called the "non-profit-industrial complex" for a reason, though.

like if you say "maybe we'll have radicals that are traveling come over and stay" or something, okay, just imagine the foundation's questions. do you have a hotel license, how many guests will you have each week, what market research have you done on the radical guest market, why are existing guest houses not adequate, why not get a business loan, etc.

this is extra funny because the local infoshop in salt lake has basically turned into a backpacker hostel with a trampoline and a tiny library of adbusters back issues crammed into a corner.